Oh, dear... it seems George has been hearing voices from God.



Now, initially I thought - WTF, but on reflection, but after a few well penned posts from another site I frequent (carters-world dot co dot uk), I realise just how not bad this is...

I should point out that the White House denies this.

I guess the question then is 'who are you going to believe?'. There's the born-again evangelical Christian's political press officer, or a politician from a state that he was trying to help. For me it's not immediately clear, but it does sound like the sort of speech Bush would make.

Quite a while back (8 months maybe?) there was a documentary about the goings on in the White House. It may have been in The Corporation, actually. Apparently Bush, Rumsfeld, etc, all take part in prayer sessions before any serious decision or meeting is undertaken. Apparently you are frowned apon if you don't show up for one.

Some expert they had called in was escorted away after exclaiming "You're God damned right." in one such meeting. Blaspheming (even such a small transgression as that) is enough to get you in trouble.

I didn't think much about it at the time, just a group of people and their faith. However all the religious spiel that Bush has been coming out with (not to mention Creationism seeping into everyday life) has begun to worry me.

Religion and Government are dangerous when they mix. *Points to the 30 years war as one such example out of a sea of many.*

Ah - he didn't mean it literally, the Palestinian dude says.

That's the old 'God speaks to me all the time so I invaded two countries - no I only meant it figuratively don't put me in the tight white jacket' defence. Swift move there. No-one noticed a thing.

How long have we got left of this muppet? (No offence intended towards muppets.)

I find the "God wants me to kill people" arguement nearly as irritating as it is disturbing. He's representing Christians this way and making us all look like a bunch of crusading lunatics. Personally I don't see where in the NT Jesus says to those Isrealites who very much wanted a holy war "Truly I say unto you, the first one to off 25 Romans gets a Get-Into-Heaven-Free pass and a cookie." But maybe I'm just reading the wrong bit.

It probably comes down to Pope Innocentus (sp?) and the call for the crusades. Anyone who goes to the Holy Land and kills heretics will have all their sins forgiven. Because, y'know, when a Pope says something it is because they have a hotline to God (sound familiar?) and it overrides everything that has come before.

Oh Popes, the cheeky chaps.

Unless I've missed actual proof (ie tapes, other witnesses, ect) between what I read on my own and this thread, this is all still speculative. Well, the exacting wording and emphasis, as I can see something along those lines being said. Saying that you think God was guiding you once are wherever is rather different from saying that you heard God's message telling you to get up and go invade Iraq. If Iraq was a true mission from God, I'd expect it to be going better than it is. >_< Oil seems a bit more likely motive among the many, though religion sounds a little less damning. Only a little though.

I'm actually rather comforted that they pray, but that only works if they're listening to God instead of bad intelligence/advice.

Apparently what Bush said was misunderstood, but the prayer meetings are still true as far as I know.

As for Iraq going better if it was a mission from God... well the Crusades didn't really go too well either. A few people got rich, many people died, and it actually HELPED the spread of Islam when the Crusaders ransaked Constantinople and brought about the destruction of the Byzantine Empire (which was pretty much the only credable bulwark against the spread of Islam). If the past is anything to go by it makes more sense to ignore whatever Holy War God calls for, your religion will be better off if you do.

I'm just saying that I haven't read of any actual documentation of what was said. And while I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, it doesn't give me an innate trust of politicians. Especially ones from a country where a notable chunk of people perhaps despise the US .



I believe there's a distinction between actual missions from God and the one men conveniently decide He's sponsoring.

The person to whome I refer was actually American. It's just a shame I don't have the link any more.



The problem is that the Pope is suppossed to be the voice of God on Earth. When he is being infalliable he's apparently doing His will. As this was before the Reformation and Luther he was in effect speaking for ALL Christians, except the Orthodox Christians who were seem as schismatics and worse than the Muslims in many cases...

Heh, that sure paid off well.

Its only a problem if you're Catholic. Which, agreed, most people were then. Such a mess. >_<

Indeed, it's incredibly messy.

As far as I recall many aspects of current Christian faiths still have roots back to Catholiscism too, or at least the influence of the Holy Roman See. Just look at the early formation of the faith and the various councils.

We're left with the same problem. People say they are carrying out Gods word even though there is no proof and observation points to the contrary. I could point to the similarities between George Bush's speeches and Al Queda but they are so obvious and depressing I would really not like to.

Did that specific decree actually invoke infallibility? I understand it's rarely done...

I think when the Pope is speaking in his official capacity when making decrees he is assumed to be speaking with the infalliable word of the Lord.
Otherwise his position is pretty useless.

Well, considering Martin Luther and everyone else broke off from the Catholic Church, yes, they can trace their roots back to it. Both Churches use the Bible, so some of the same concepts and such will be debated and decided on as well. Not to mention authors like St. Augustine.



People will always have a stupidity to action ratio and often do evil. The practical benefit to not having a Pope, is that there is no central figure with the power to inflict this on such a large scale. We also miss out on the advantages of a good Pope, but c'est la vie. I don't follow Church politics much, but most of the American ones seem to have elected presidents and boards of trustee's and elders. This system seems to have far more checks and balances than the living representitive of God (or something along those lines) and better allows for human frailties.

Some flawed thinking and churches happen, but there damage is at least in part limited to the church they are in. Ie a Baptist debate wouldn't affect me much if at all, beyond concern for fellow Christians and my faith. Catholic issues seem to concern the entire Church on a larger scale. Thats going off articles and things I've read actual Catholics post, so I certainly could have misunderstood or whatnot. It was just the impression I got.

I really hope that Dubya meant that faith was guiding him, not that God was talking in his head. I often hear the voice of my temper telling me to smack someone, but that doesn't provide a justification for my actions. Bah. When will we get a competent president? If it's Hillary I'm jumping off a cliff to end the misery.

What's wrong with Hillary Clinton? (That's said in a 'I'm interested' tone rather than an 'outraged at the idea' one.)

I have a report to write, so I'll stick with the short answer. Anyone who says, "You can't do that! WE are the president!" when people want to bother her husband should not be trusted with power over a country. Yes, she actually said this. The other annoying things will have to wait until my evil presentation is done.

I don't know, she's done a decent job as senator, as far as I know, at least. What do our New York members have to say about her?

Don't you mean Senator?

People seemed to rather like her when I was living there, but that was shortly after she was elected.

From what I've seen of her (admittedly limited), she seems very quick to jump on the censorship wagon. Very "won't somebody please think of the children?!" style.

Yes, the computer games thing was very reactionary. Other than that I've generally heard good stuff about her, but like you my knowledge is pretty limited, more based on reputation than specific examples of decisions she's made.

Wikipedia has a decent enough summary of her views here.

Hmm. Time to make a point-by-point list of what about Hillary disturbs me. Most of this is in the Wikipedia article. I just pulled it out in summaries, so check back there for more detail.
-She keeps parroting all the correct middle-ground babble designed to attract votes from anyone. She tries to choose the center of all the issues and it's troubling that any of her views could be turned in any direction when it suits her later. Intelligent and sneaky.
-I appreciate that she approves of civil unions for gays, but it bothers me that she's stopping short of gay marriage. It seems that the old "sanctity of marriage" excuse is wearing rather thin what with the enormous divorce rate and so many people cheating on their spouses. I can understand that some religions don't approve of gay marriage, but you can be legally married in a courthouse without the need to disturb a church if its religion forbids it. The center of an issue again that will allow her to swing any direction later.
-She's been involved in some shady financial activities, particularly the cattle futures thing. If she was successfully trading at a profit, why stop at the neat amount of $100,000? The whole thing seems to me like someone was bribing her. Whitewater is very suspicious. The billing records "mysteriously" appeared two years after they were demanded in a place where it seems that they would have been quickly found.
-You can learn a lot about people through offhand remarks, and some of hers are interesting. The Gandhi comment may have been an attempt at humor, or maybe she really is prejudiced. I'm not going to try to call that one. However, one comment that she made (it's not in the article) has irritated housewives all across the board. Some reporters were asking her about why she chose to have a career. She replied, "Well, I could have just stayed home and made cookies, but I wanted to have a real career." This comes off as really rude and contemptuous to every woman who has chosen to be a housewife. Raising children and taking care a family may not be as glamorous as being a lawyer or a business executive, but it is as valid and important a career choice as any other. She gushes on about taking care of the children and then she turns around and scorns all women who have devoted their lives to doing just that. Very snotty double standard.
-The whole socialist medical idea that she's backing isn't going to work. You can get free medical care in countries with this system, but the medical system if overrun and people often have to wait months for a routine examination because everyone runs to the doctor whenever they have a sniffle.
-Her views on censorship have already been mentioned, so I'll stick to saying that it really pisses me off. Personal responsibility seems to have no place in her world. If people are so worried about violent or sexual games, they should arrange boycotts and keep tabs on what their own children are playing, not blame the companies.
Hillary Clinton is unquestionably intelligent, but I don't trust her to handle power over the United States responsibly and objectively.

It's hardly "overrun". Last time I needed to go to the doctor, I was seen, diagnosed, prescribed and given medication in a day. I realise it's anecdotal evidence, but this isn't really the sign of a system choking on its own proverbial vomit.

On the other hand, under the current American medical system, I know a couple of people who will be in debt for the rest of their lives because they were unlucky enough to need surgery when they were without health insurance.

It's been said most middle-class Americans are only one long-term illness away from bankruptcy.

Although the National Health Service was introduced by an arguably socialist government in the UK, I'd hardly call it a 'socialist' policy. It's been going 57 years, and no Conservative government has privatised it yet.

Really, what is so radical about a service that provides people with help for free, when they are at their most vulnerable? I'm frankly baffled as to how anyone can defend a system that charges thousands of dollars to those least able to earn the money to pay. One day, there'll be a serious pandemic in the US, and your entire workforce will collapse when the price of treatment skyrockets beyond the reach of ordinary people due to the increased demand, leaving the US workforce sick and unable to work. I bet you'll be more fond of 'socialist' healthcare when your whole economy comes crashing down around you.

[/rant]

Well, it is a socialist system, in that it's an expression of socialist ideals (providing a taxpayer-funded service to everybody free at point of service). The Labour Party was credibly socialist until 1997.

Tell that to the doctors, nurses, staff, janitors, medical suppliers, pharmacists, research scientists, transporters, and everybody else who depends on patients pay for their living. All services must be paid for at some level, because the people providing that service need to be paid. While it is wonderfully idealistic to say that everybody should be able to get good medical coverage, I think that it would screw over the medical proffession to such a degree that the brightest minds in medicine wouldn't go into the field because there wouldn't be much of an incentive for it. Also, a paid medical service ensures that those of us who are able to pay for medical services are able to receive the best care we can afford, and are more able to choose what medical care we receive.

Are you forgetting that that's exactly what we have here? And that there has been a notable lack of every single doctor fleeing to America? In fact, the apocalypse predicted by the free-marketeer doomsayers has yet to fall on us for our blasphemy. I'm sure it's on its way.

And people can, if they want, pay for private healthcare. There's plenty of companies that will provide it.

Aren't you forgetting the people who can't afford to pay for medical services? In my mind, they are the most important when it comes to provision of healthcare. Those with enough money to pay their own medical bills are not my concern since they can look after themselves. To deny the less well off access to decent healthcare is a display of a complete absence of compassion or respect for your fellow human beings.

I'd love to know what someone in the US with no health insurance and little wealth or income thinks about the concept of choice. They'd be happy to have any guarantee of treatment at all, let alone the luxury of being able to choose where to have it.

So far as I've heard, the American medical system is the best in the world, if you can afford it.



I think that the people who are in the most dire need are the most important, regardless of financial status.

As for people who cannot afford it, there are free clinics, there are places you can get healthcare cheaply. Yes, healthcare is expensive, but that's because it costs the people providing it a lot. It's like education - yes, anybody can be educated to a degree, but to be very educated requires a LOT of money. Anybody can get care for simple things, but to be very cared for costs a LOT of money. Is it ideal? No, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need healthcare. I simply think that nothing is free, at some point, people need to be paid. The question comes down to whether or not it is in society's best interest to raise taxes and provide free healthcare. I don't think that it is worth it.

You keep saying that. They are paid. It's not like we have brain surgeons working for minimum wage in the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Britain.

Add to that two things. Firstly, that in America healthcare is a business - that is, a key aim is profit. Therefore corners are cut and prices are raised to guarantee profit margins. Secondly, that you are not only paying for medical workers, you're paying for insurance companies. How many insurance companies do you have? How many thousands of people do they employ, and how much profit are they taking home? All of that is being paid for before you even start to pay for a doctor. How much more can we be paying than you?

Dire predictions of the consequences of taxpayer-funded healthcare simply fly in the face of the reality of the systems most of Europe have.

Actually the reason it became OK to use violence in the name of God was because St Augustion of Hippo decided it was an expression of divine love; you are chastising the infidel the same way you chastice a child whom you love, you want to save their souls so you punish them until they behave right. Plus the Orthodox patriarch and the Byzantine Emperor started the crusades as a way of throwing the Turks out of Anatolia(which was where the Empires, and therefore the Churches main revenue came from) for free under the guize of a mission to free Jerusalem, they only involved the Pope because they needed to recruit Western Christians as well and they wouldn't come to the call of the Byzantine Church.

However after the First Crusade the fact that they had conquered Jereusalem went to their heads and they kicked the Orthodox Christians out, and from then on it became a Catholic enterprise (and the kept losing and losing).



You know what? All those staff get paid. The NHS is struggling a bit but that it outweighed by the lives it saves. In America people die because they can't afford medical treatment. Here they may not get it quick enough but they get it. Private healthcare is better and the waiting lists are much shorter, sometimes the NHS lists are so long that they make the treatment useless. However; many people are alive now, and leading full lives because of the NHS. My godfather would be dead if it weren't for the NHS because he couldn't afford private care when he was younger. My best friend would either be dead, or deaf, brain damaged and stuck with the height and body of a preadolescant because there is no way her parents could have afforded the treatment she needed privately. She's a beautiful genious musician who is going to train as a surgeon, and all that talent would have been lost without the NHS. I could continue listing examples but I won't. And hey I bet those janitors are glad there is an NHS because on their salaries I doubt they could afford it privately.

Education is free up to University level and in some places even that is free. You don't need to be educated to live but you do need health care to live. People end up in severe debt for years in order to pay for their own or their loved ones medical care and that isn't right. Why should you deny other people basic rights because they can't afford to pay for them? You pay tax and part of that goes toward schools but are you protesting outside the whitehouse about that? Slighty higher taxes are worth lives being saved and you can't argue that it doesn't work because most European countries and other places have it and it does. We have a duty to look after those who can't look after themselves and from a selfish point of view, if all the workers are too sick too work then the economy collapses.

Kindly don't take my words out of context. Although you might think jumping on one sentence without consideration of the sentences which justify it earns you points, it's actually just irritating and childish. Anyway...



You are right, in one way at least - nothing is free. But at least most Europeans know when they're going to be paying for the healthcare that they will one day use. It comes out of their salary every month. And Europeans don't have to worry about being able to afford those payments, because they are only a proportion of their income instead of a fixed (or at least inelastic) sum. People aren't left to die because they are simply poor. People don't die slowly from diseases that have robbed them of their job, their money, and their ability to pay for further treatment.

I'd much rather have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that I will receive medical help, regardless of my income, than have the burden of knowing that I could be permanantly ruined if unfortunate enough to fall sick. I also prefer not to argue in favour of a system fundamentally based on greed and market forces that would rather leave someone to die than treat them, if financially prudent.

I seem to have misphrased and caused some misunderstanding, and I apologize, though it is amusing that that's the only part of my post that anyone seemed to notice. I'm going by the anecdotal evidence of a cousin who had to wait forever to get even a routine medical exam in a country with socialized medicine because the medical system was so crowded. It may work better in other places, but I'm not sure that it would work in America just yet. Our national debt is high and we're spending money on so many things that it keeps getting worse. Socialized medicine would require a complete overhaul of the way everything in the medical field is paid for and decided. That would take years of confusion, recalculation of taxes to pay for medicine, and all sorts of chaos as people got used to the new system. I'm in a rush, so I have to go.

It's fair enough for you to say that free health care may not work in America at the moment, but that is very different to what you originally said and what Dave now seems to be arguing, that it doesn't work at all.



Is it in society's best interest to have workers that are educated? Yes, so you pay taxes and the government provides people with free education.

Is it in society's best interest to not be invaded? Yes, so you pay taxes and the government trains the armed forces.

Is it in society's best interest to have workers that are fit and healthy? Yes so you pay taxes and... oh wait, you don't do you?

That is basically what the situation looks like to me. Healthcare is more fundemental than either education or defence, yet you gladly pay for those.

In the British system, you have the choice of either getting top-class care by going private if you can afford it, or getting good care if you cannot afford it or don't want to. Whereas in America, you have the choice of getting very good care if you can afford it and terrible care if you can't, because the free clinics get little funding. Personally, I'd go for the system where most people get good care.

Ooooh, I didn't know about St Augustion. Something I shall read up on!

Indeed, Anatolia was the bread basket of the empire and where the lions share of its manpower was recruited from, at least after Egypt was lost. However the First Crusade needed the go-ahead from the Pope before the Empire got any help. I believe the Emperor may have dangled the possible re-union of the Churches together as an incentive but I think it's folly to believe the Pope would have relinquished control of the Levant after the Muslims were cast out, it was just to much of a tool to weild in matters of faith and politics.

Later Crusades were instigated mainly under the authorisation of the Pope. The Fourth Crusade was mainly due to the mechanations of the Venetians I think and the Pope stayed out of it, condemning it as an unwarented attack against fellow Christians. Infact those who took part in it were excommunicated. Until they successfully sieged Constantinople, looted everything of worth, and broke up the Empire into various bickering statelets that could do nothing to hold back the Muslim advance. THEN the crusade was supported by the Pope, after quite spectaculaly shooting themselves in the foot. You have to really wonder what goes through these peoples minds sometimes...

It's Augustin not Augustoin, I spelt it wrong sorry. The later crusades were all Western Christian but the original idea was Orthodox. I think the idea of reunited churches was dangled infront of the Pope but I think the Emperor thoguth he could sufficiently control the crusaders so that he would be left in charge of Jerusalem (silly Emperor).

Actually, no. Under the agreement the Latins would give all the land regained to the Emperor after the Crusade had concluded. However things didn't actually end up that way... the Emperor was just too stretched and weak to make the Latins live up to their end of the bargain. So they kept it and the Emperors position got even weaker.

The possibility of reuniting the Churches was dangled infront of the Pope many times. It was the best bargaining chip for gaining aid against the 'eastern aggressors'. Even until Constantinople fell for the last time it was still being used, but by then everyone realised it was an empty gesture. It was attempted once but by then the Greeks hated the Latins more than the Muslims.... heh. Something about suppressing your culture and breaking up your land into rival fiefs will do that.

In hindsight the Catholics and the Pope really screwed up pretty badly. Even at the time it should have been realised that breaking up your defenses into rival factions isn't really the best plan...

Then again the Emperor probably asked for it. It's called 'Byzantine Politics' for a reason.

I doubt it was used in the fourth crusade seeing how that was against constantinople. The Muslims were a nicer occupying force because as long as they paid extra tax they left the orthodox believers alone and when they requonquered Jerusalem they gave the Orthodox church the Christian holy places back.

Oh actually it WAS used in the Fourth Crusader, but by an usurper to the Imperial Throne. I'm not sure if anyone paid any attention to him, but to his credit he did manage to get crowned Emperor by the Crusaders... then they looted the Empire and took it over.

Yup, the muslims were pretty much the more tolerant faith back then. Things changed later (though perhaps not in the Ottoman Empire). I believe non-muslims would also be exempt from military service as well as being able to practice their faith as long as they paid additional tax. That's actually a pretty sweet deal for the time.

from the cambridge english dictionary.

I consider all people that hold a religious belief to be fantics, not nescesarily bad ones but definately fanatics. my reasoning is this: there is no reasoning with faith. it is, in fact, unreasonable.



from the cambridge english dictionary.


my point is that all the time there are differing oppinions of what deitic being/beings created us or hold power over us, there will be unreasoning people that will take it upon themselves to end the opposing oppinion not through talk, for as I have already said Faith is beyond reason, but through violence.


as a kind of unrelated tack on, i would like to share my favourite part of the hitchhikers trilogy with you. Appologies its a bit long

bryden: I won't dispute that faith is unreasonable. I will dispute that there's something inherently wrong with unreason. Everyone has beliefs based on unreason. There are vast areas of human thought and inquiry that cannot by their very natures be based on logic. Pure logic, without the subjective and absurd, is near-useless for most things.

There are some things which are logical without being reasonable and things can be reasonable without being logical. It is nearly impossible to prove logically that a=a, without using that property, yet it is obviously reasonable. And some outcomes of logic are not reasonable, like Godel's theorum, that mathematically states, "This sentance cannot exist".

You don't have to prove that logically. That a = a is one of the basic principles on which logic rests; it proves itself a priori.

Guess who's doing a philosophy course?

Anecdotal evidence 2: last Christmas, around 3AM the pain in my ear became so intense that I couldn't sleep. I walked up to the emergency department of my local hospital and was seen within half an hour. They gave me a load of seriously powerful painkillers and antibiotics and sent me on my way. All I gave them was my name and address on a sheet of paper. They didn't even check it. That, to me, is the advantage of the helath system that we have. I was in a huge amount of pain and they were there when I needed them.

The US is very protective of not paying more taxes but then complains when its health care is too expensive and the roads aren't maintained. To me you either have it one way or the other.

BTW, I love the way that on this forum I'm only ever a couple of clicks away from theological debates, discussions about costume making, and conversations about silly names or animated mammaries.

The American system is very screwed up right now. There's been tax cuts where there don't need to be cough*wealthy*cough and national debt is humongous. Socialized medicine might work here (I probably should have confirmed my cousin's medical drama with lots of research before generalizing-oops) but trying to do it now would be very confusing and cause a lot of chaos. Hillary Clinton spouts off like we could institute socialized medicine next week and have it work perfectly when instead it would be disorderly and confused for years if we tried to institute it just now. Her views about censorship are still annoying me. The First Amendment was written for a reason, and no-one is threatening hordes of people with death at gunpoint in stores if they don't buy violent video games.